The broadcast network evening news shows took their cues from the Obama campaign Thursday night as all framed their coverage -- of President Bush warning in Israel that “some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals” -- around angry reaction to Bush's perceived attack on Barack Obama with CBS and NBC trying to undermine Bush's argument by contending it contradicts policies of past Republican Presidents and/or Bush administration officials.
CBS anchor Katie Couric, referring to Bush and John McCain, cited “a two-pronged Republican attack today on Barack Obama on a key foreign policy matter.” Reporter Chip Reid saw a “Republican barrage” which “began in Jerusalem today where President Bush appeared to be taking aim at Barack Obama.” Reid soon passed along how “Obama, who has said he would meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, and Cuba, noted that Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, and even Reagan also negotiated directly with America's enemies.” But Mikhail Gorbachev hadn't promised to nuke Israel.
Over on NBC, Brian Williams teased his lead story: “President Bush on the world stage delivers what was widely seen as an attack on Barack Obama.” Williams described it as “today's political shot heard 'round the world. The concussion was instantaneous. Upon hearing the news, one Democratic Senator used a word we can't use on this broadcast.” Reporter John Yang called it “the first salvo of this fall's general election campaign” and, with “THIS IS B******T” on screen, relayed how “Senator Joseph Biden characterized the President's words with a word we can't use.” Yang contended Bush's admonition “would also apply to Mr. Bush's former Secretary of State” who urged engagement with Hamas. But not a personal sit-down with the President of the United States.
ABC's World News, which like CBS led with the same-sex marriage ruling in California, approached the Bush/Obama story in less hyperbolic terms as anchor Charles Gibson introduced a report from David Wright: “There was a debate today between Republicans and Democrats that spanned the Atlantic Ocean. President Bush, addressing Israel's parliament, made comments to which Barack Obama and other Democrats took offense -- and then John McCain got involved.”
FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume highlighted this pledge on the Obama campaign's Web site:
Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.
Transcripts of the stories on the Thursday, May 15 CBS and NBC evening newscasts:
CBS Evening News:
KATIE COURIC, IN OPENING TEASER: Also tonight, President Bush jumps into the campaign fray.GEORGE W. BUSH: Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals.
COURIC: Barack Obama calls it a false political attack on him.
....
COURIC: And if the gay marriage debate is a preview of what may come in the fall election campaign, here is another -- a two-pronged Republican attack today on Barack Obama on a key foreign policy matter: Iran. Chip Reid has that story.
CHIP REID: The Republican barrage began in Jerusalem today where President Bush appeared to be taking aim at Barack Obama.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals.
REID: Negotiating with terrorists today, he said, would be like trying to appease Hitler before World War II.
BUSH: We've heard this foolish delusion before as Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939-
REID: A White House spokesman denied that Obama was the target. But when John McCain jumped into the fray, there was no doubt where he was aiming.
JOHN MCCAIN CLIP #1: Why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?
MCCAIN CLIP #2: It is a serious error on the part of Senator Obama. It shows naivete and inexperience.
REID: In a written statement, Obama said it was "sad" that the President would use the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary to "launch a false political attack." Obama, who has said he would meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, and Cuba, noted that Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, and even Reagan also negotiated directly with America's enemies. Even Hillary Clinton came to his defense.
HILLARY CLINTON: President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous.
REID: For McCain, the focus on Obama yet again overshadowed his own campaign, and an unusual speech today in which he imagined what the world will look like in 2013 at the end of his first term.
MCCAIN CLIP #1: America has welcomed home most of the service men and women who have sacrificed terribly.
MCCAIN CLIP #2: The Iraq war has been won.
REID: Democrats say McCain's crystal ball must be cloudy. Their crystal ball, they say, not surprisingly, shows a Democrat in the White House for the next four years, and the troops home from Iraq long before 2013.
NBC Nightly News:
BRIAN WILLIAMS, TEASE: On the broadcast tonight, war of words. President Bush on the world stage delivers what was widely seen as an attack on Barack Obama.....
WILLIAMS: Good evening tonight from Atlanta. President George W. Bush today went before the Israeli legislature to deliver an important speech on Israel's 60th anniversary. In one particular paragraph, he invoked the fight against the horrors of Nazi Germany, and it was clear to those listening that it was, in part, to make a point about Barack Obama back home. It was today's political shot heard 'round the world. The concussion was instantaneous. Upon hearing the news, one Democratic Senator used a word we can't use on this broadcast. And so we begin here tonight with NBC's John Yang who's in Jerusalem traveling with the President. John, good evening.
JOHN YANG: Good evening, Brian. This just may have been the first salvo of this fall's general election campaign, and it was fired by someone who's not even running. Speaking to Israeli lawmakers, President Bush ridiculed calls for diplomatic engagement with Iran.
PRESIDENT BUSH, AT KNESSET: Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
YANG: He compared it to attempts to placate Adolf Hitler on the eve of World War II.
BUSH: We've heard this foolish delusion before. We have an obligation to call this what it is, the false comfort of appeasement.
YANG: Mr. Bush didn't name any names. Privately, White House officials said the shoe fits the Democratic front-runner. Obama reacted sharply, calling the President's speech a “false political attack” that “does nothing to secure the American people and our stalwart ally Israel.” The presumptive Republican nominee quickly echoed the President.
JOHN McCAIN, ON HIS BUS: It is a serious error on the part of Senator Obama that shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment.
YANG: Top Democrats leapt to Obama's defense.
HILLARY CLINTON: President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous.
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: What the President did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of President.
YANG: Senator Joseph Biden characterized the President's words with a word we can't use [on screen: “THIS IS B******T.”] White House officials said Mr. Bush's speech wasn't political, it was just stating longstanding policy. They said the criticism also applied to former President Jimmy Carter and foreign allies. But it would also apply to Mr. Bush's former Secretary of State.
AUDIO OF COLIN POWELL ON NPR ON JULY 18: Hamas has to be engaged. I don't think you can't just cast them in outer darkness and try to find a solution to the problems of the region without taking into account the standing that Hamas has in the Palestinian community.
YANG: And current Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this week unofficial contact with Iran would be a good thing, a position Pentagon officials said is in tune with the President. This may have been the first preview of the Republican line of attack against Obama if he wins the Democratic nomination and it was launched here in Israel at a time when a key U.S. voting block was paying very close attention. Brian?
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center





COURIC: And if the gay marriage debate is a preview of what may come in the fall election campaign, here is another -- a two-pronged Republican attack today on Barack Obama on a key foreign policy matter: Iran. Chip Reid has that story.
REID: In a written statement, Obama said it was "sad" that the President would use the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary to "launch a false political attack." Obama, who has said he would meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, and Cuba, noted that Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, and even Reagan also negotiated directly with America's enemies. Even Hillary Clinton came to his defense.
WILLIAMS: Good evening tonight from Atlanta. President George W. Bush today went before the Israeli legislature to deliver an important speech on Israel's 60th anniversary. In one particular paragraph, he invoked the fight against the horrors of Nazi Germany, and it was clear to those listening that it was, in part, to make a point about Barack Obama back home. It was today's political shot heard 'round the world. The concussion was instantaneous. Upon hearing the news, one Democratic Senator used a word we can't use on this broadcast. And so we begin here tonight with NBC's John Yang who's in Jerusalem traveling with the President. John, good evening.
YANG: Mr. Bush didn't name any names. Privately, White House officials said the shoe fits the Democratic front-runner. Obama reacted sharply, calling the President's speech a “false political attack” that “does nothing to secure the American people and our stalwart ally Israel.” The presumptive Republican nominee quickly echoed the President.
YANG: Senator Joseph Biden characterized the President's words with a word we can't use [on screen: “THIS IS B******T.”] White House officials said Mr. Bush's speech wasn't political, it was just stating longstanding policy. They said the criticism also applied to former President Jimmy Carter and foreign allies. But it would also apply to Mr. Bush's former Secretary of State. 















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If...
May 15, 2008 - 21:07 ET by the curatorIf President Bush's comments were directed at Sen. Obama, I think the news coverage is completely warranted.
My question is... if President Bush wasn't refering to Sen. Obama, to whom do you think was was refering?
UPDATE:
Actually, "completely warranted," probably isn't quite right. Coverage of the story I'm cool with. "Attack" isn't quite how I'd phrase it. "Criticism," maybe. "Attack" seems a little too sensationalistic. I like how ABC led into it (script above).
Although, I do believe the president was refering to Sen. Obama.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
My question is... if
May 15, 2008 - 23:11 ET by motherbeltMy question is... if President Bush wasn't refering to Sen. Obama, to whom do you think was was refering?
Jimmy Carter, maybe? Her Speakerness Pelosi going to talk to Assad?
It doesn't have to be someone instead of Obama; it could mean Obama and others. He did say "Those who..."
hafta disagree cure
May 16, 2008 - 10:48 ET by candanceAppeasement is a long-standing issue, as noted in the speech, going back at least to Nazi Germany. America needs a long term plan for dealing with Iran and IMO that's what Bush had in mind.
Right now everyone is living in a fishbowl where they assume everything that happens in the world is about the election in 2008. Bush could have given that exact same speech two years ago with the same impact because there are always those who want to try appeasement first.
IMO Bush was talking in very general terms about the risk of appeasement, and his shot in the dark hit a nerve with Obama. The same could have applied to John Kerry in 2004, or folks at the NY Times, or Britain's new PM, or Russia, or the Spanish, or people like Michael Moore who constantly try to brainwash the American people that appeasement would work. Obama doesn't own the copyright to a doctrine of appeasement.
Like we've all mentioned here before, unless Obama's plan really is appeasement the speech should not have mattered to him. The best thing he could have done is said "I dunno who Bush is talking to because my brand of tough diplomacy is not appeasement at all." Instead of doing that, Obama volunteered to concede that appeasement is his plan.
I guess he's taking a gamble that the American people will trust him but it won't work. Bush's Hilter/Ahmadinejad analogy was pretty close and enough to send a chill through American voters, especially those with Jewish ancestors. Obama thought he could convince us "there's nothing wrong with appeasement and Bush is being mean" but he fails to understand that the American people will never again be comfortable with appeasement. He thought enough Americans were on his side and it backfired.
Rev Wright is now old news - Obama stepped in this of his own doing, took a label of appeaser, and slapped it on his own forehead.
You can bet the Israeli government saw between those lines real quick and are now more nervous of Obama than ever.
Diplomacy is not Appeasement
May 16, 2008 - 14:29 ET by the curatorunless Obama's plan really is appeasement the speech should not have mattered to him.
Obama's plan is, and I'm quoting him, "Tough diplomacy."
Now, if one wants to interpret "tought diplomacy" to be appeasement, that's their deal. I think they'd be wrong.
Obama is taking issue with President Bush (allegedly) refering to his plan for 'tough diplomacy' as 'appeasement.'
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
nice dodge
May 16, 2008 - 14:34 ET by candanceOnce again, Bush said nothing about Obama's platform. He was talking about appeasement in general terms and Obama voluntarily announced that the speech was geared toward him.
Don't need a name
May 16, 2008 - 17:10 ET by the curatorPersonally, I think any rational observation of the speech can conclude the president was infering, if not Obama specifically, then Obama amongst a group of others.
Perino even admitted Obama fit the cirteria of the comments.
People don't need to be mentioned by name in order to be talked about.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
What is interesting . . .
May 15, 2008 - 21:08 ET by Gat New YorkWhile the Nets have aired the views of certain Democrats - none of them are Jewish including the likely suspects: Koch, Schumer, Feinstein, Weiner, Frank, etc.
Could it be that they are thinking of how to respond to this or are they silently in agreement?
Obama already has a major Jewish problem which will also fall under a major problem with understanding the Middle East and having a policy of non-aggression with radical Islam.
While Bush never mentioned Obama - or even implied him - the idiot took the bait and is now trapped on the losing side of a national security/foreign policy issue.
Brilliantly done by President Bush and equally brilliantly followed up by McCain.
I Disagree
May 15, 2008 - 21:12 ET by the curatorI dont' think this will hurt Obama.
This just illustrates another difference in the ideological divide between the candidates.
McCain, like Bush, as repeatedly said he will not negotiate with Iran.
That, to many who oppose the war, signals to them we could jump into another armed conflict. Obviously, the anti-Bush voters.
Obama, to court those voters, says he will engage in talks.
This exchange today (I think) will do nothing to sway anyone. It'll rile up the bases on both sides.
People who don't want diplomacy will side with the president and Sen. McCain.
Those who want negotiations before war will side with Sen. Obama.
Nothing different from yesterday.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Curator, you are probably right. This won't hurt Obama.
May 15, 2008 - 21:28 ET by R D HelmBut it should.
Problem is, the government-schooled brain-dead idiots who are going to vote for this clown aren't historically aware enough to know what happens to people when they try to "negotiate" with Islamo-supremicist barbarians.
That despite the history of the last fourteen centuries.
Legalize Freedom-Vote Libertarian
Does Anyone Know...
May 15, 2008 - 21:33 ET by the curatorRD,
Do you know if Obama ever came out and said he'd sit down with Hamas?
I know he's said he would with Iran.
Honestly, I think that's a tricky spot. I don't like the idea of talking with someone who says they're going to blow up Israel... but, we're not talking about your run-of-the-mill terrorist (though that's what I believe he is).
I know a lot of people give Obama hell for saying he'd give Ahmedenijad a sit-down... but, I don't think its an easy decision - you know?
I say this because past presidents have negotiated with our enemies. And I know Gorbechev never said he's blow up Israel... they had their missles pointed at US. But, Reagan still talked with him.. many times.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
curator,
May 15, 2008 - 21:56 ET by R D HelmIt depends on which story one reads. It has been said that Obama has stated that he will not negotiate with Hammas, but he would be willing to talk to the Iranians.
I wasn't happy when Dr. Rice suggested we talk to them, and doing so now would cheese me off further.
Every time I turn around, Akhmedinadinnerjacket is threatening to blow Israel off the map.
To his credit, he did jump on Jihad Jimmy for his willingness to talk to Hammas. Of course, this may have been an effort to preserve what little of the Jewish vote he still has.
Legalize Freedom-Vote Libertarian
A little bit of food for thought
May 15, 2008 - 21:59 ET by FoolicanGorby was very off-the-wall as far as Russian premiers go. Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Stalin were all repudiated by the United States. However, Gorbachev's policies all focused around economic reform and perestroika rather than military empowerment, so it made sense that he and Reagan seemed to get along. His engagement with former enemies like Britain and the U.S. was known as "New Thinking," so yes, it was indeed a breath of fresh air. At the moment, nobody wants to have anything to do with Ahmedinejad (sp?). Ironically, Gorbachev was the last Soviet premier before the Berlin Wall fell and the country split into factions.
Some could say that the same effect would occur if Bush got kicked out of office and replaced with the lightweight Obama. Who knows? Only history will tell.
Edit: Curator... I like you. There's nothing I enjoy more than having a friendly discussion with an ideological opposite
Ditto
May 15, 2008 - 23:27 ET by the curatorThanks, Foolican. Same here.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
"This exchange today (I
May 15, 2008 - 21:38 ET by ckc1227"This exchange today (I think) will do nothing to sway anyone. It'll rile up the bases on both sides."
Perhaps not, but Obama's appeasement first philosophy may make Jewish people think twice about their vote. If it comes down to an appeasing democrat(Obama) and a non-appeasing democrat(McCain), they just might vote for the democrat with the (R) behind his name.
Great Points
May 15, 2008 - 21:42 ET by the curatorI agree completely. I don't know how impactful the Jewish electorate is, however.
That's not sarcasm... its honest ignorance on my part. I don't know how big a vote that is.
Though, I don't see NY going Sen. McCain's way. Which, if I'm not mistaken, has the largest Jewish population in the U.S.?
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
This may be of interest
May 15, 2008 - 22:01 ET by Gat New YorkI may be rare as a Jewish conservative but NONE of my liberal Jewish friends are voting for Obama.
There is a keen awareness among some of Obama's past, his affiliations and his key foreign policy advisors as well as his statements. This blog should be of interest:
http://jewishdemocraticsupport.blogspot.com/
Steve Herbits was Undersecretary of Defense during the Ford Administration. He was also a close advisor to Rumsfeld. The two had a falling out regarding the conduct of the Iraq War early on. My guess is that Rumsfeld should have heeded Steve's advice.
Steve was also a leader of the World Jewish Congress and a major person in the UJA. When Steve says there will be massive movement of Jews away from the Democratic party this Fall you can take it to the bank. More importantly he indicates that there will be MAJOR Demecratic party Jewish donors that will withhold their support and may instead place it behind McCain. THAT is the significance of what just happened today.
What Bush did was brilliant and McCain's response was equally brilliant. And because Obama took the bait.
Yeah, I'm not sure how big
May 15, 2008 - 22:24 ET by ckc1227Yeah, I'm not sure how big that vote is either. 1.7 million in NY, but who knows how many are voters. By the way, NY has the second largest Jewish population in the world, California third. Israel, of course, is first.
Still, in a close election(if its close) every vote matters. If it's a landslide, which it could be, the Jewish vote won't matter very much.
You have to assume...
May 16, 2008 - 14:26 ET by the curatorYou have to assume NY is going to go Obama. And, unless it falls into the ocean first, so will California.
That said, unless someone elese has someting on the topic, I don't think lack of Jewish support would hurt Obama.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Smells Like Fascism
May 15, 2008 - 21:12 ET by Kirk TurnerHere are the key components of fascism:
Government control of business (Global Warming)
Cult of Personality (Obama)
A promise of Utopia (Liberals)
Suppression of contrary opinions (Use of "racism" threats to control honest debate)
It couldn't happen here? Well, it is coming down Broadway. Can you see it? It walks like fascism; talks like fascism; and quacks like fascism. They only want what is best, and you better G*&m well let them have it, or else.
It's fascism, American style.
I'd like to take small
May 15, 2008 - 21:20 ET by the curatorI'd like to take small issue with your "suppression of contrary opinions" comment.
I don't disagree that people are - at least to a point - being scared off of making comments for fear of being labled racist.
But, I would say its not nearly as bad as people being branded 'unpatriotic' and 'terrorist sympathizers' for questioning the war in any way early on.
Again, I don't disagree with your specific point on that one. Just want to make the comment that this is neither new, nor exclusive to one party or the other.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Okay, now this is getting comical, and not a little absurd.
May 15, 2008 - 21:21 ET by R D HelmI think the MSM is seriously over-playing their hand here. Even if Mr. Bush was aiming his comments at Obama (and who really cares if he was) the MSM's overblown reaction is all out of proportion to reality.
Even many of the dolts who sit and watch The Perky One are going to be turned off by this.
Legalize Freedom-Vote Libertarian
Heh, the MSM never does
May 15, 2008 - 21:43 ET by CortillaenHeh, the MSM never does anything halfway... except fact-checking.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Bush's "Attack" on Obama
May 15, 2008 - 21:35 ET by nandrelliActually, I would think that Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter would be the ones who feel attacked by this statement. After all, they are the ones who actually went and met with terrorist leaders.
No reminders of what has
May 15, 2008 - 21:55 ET by general companyNo reminders of what has actualy happend ,,,,please and thanks
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
And the Special Media Forces
May 15, 2008 - 21:37 ET by Chris NormanAnd the Special Media Forces of the Democratic Party swing into action...
Kinda funny how they
May 15, 2008 - 21:49 ET by general companyKinda funny how they compare Repubs against what Obama said. The comparisons are ridiculous and the thought process is also miles apart, but their they go anyway, acting as if none of us have been following along
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Talk about circling the
May 15, 2008 - 21:54 ET by exLibTalk about circling the wagons.
Wow, just when you think, well maybe I am over-reacting because I am a partisan Conservative, stuff like this happens and it removes ALL doubt.
The media is so in the tank for Obama that they are now relaying talking points and "diguising it" as news.
Hopefully people can see how transparent this is.
The audacity of Pelosi
May 15, 2008 - 21:56 ET by AlabamaI saw this this evening on NBC. When Nancy Pelosi came up with this line---"What the President did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of President"--- I wanted to throw my supper at the tv! Suffice it to say, I became one of those weirdos you see yelling at their tv set, as though the people inside can hear them. Nancy Pelosi, of all people, chastising Bush. From what I've gleaned from the various bits of his statement, he never at any point mentions a particular political party, much less a particular politician anywhere in his speech. So what, exactly, does Pelosi find "beneath the dignity of the office of President??" The fact that Bush didn't BS around with the idea that some loony democrat will come along and convine Iran not to nuke Israel?? Please... Dignity... what the heck does she know about dignity?? That's gotta be the least dignified statement I've heard all day. Ugh... ok, sorry... that woman just makes my blood boil!!!
I hope
May 15, 2008 - 22:09 ET by txcoI hope President Bush does this everytime he makes a speech until he leaves office.
he never at any point
May 16, 2008 - 10:08 ET by pbanks7he never at any point mentions a particular political party, much less a particular politician anywhere in his speech.
As my Mom used to say, a guilty conscience needs no accuser. The truth hurts.
So what, exactly, does Pelosi find "beneath the dignity of the office of President??"
This, from the woman who walks in a parade chumming it up with representatives of NAMBLA. She's so low that she could put on a top hat and skip rope under a pregnant snake.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
I believe Bush's
May 15, 2008 - 22:17 ET by MidAmericaI believe Bush's statement has more to do with people like Carter than obama. Obama is such a neophyte I don't think the terrorists would take him seriously.
Guilty as He**
May 15, 2008 - 22:22 ET by ScrapironThere was not better way for the democrats to admit their guilt than to jump on a statement that had no name attached. If they weren't guilty they would have remained silent and ignored it. Go GWB, it's time to tell the world how the slime has been oozing from the democrat party for years. They would sacrafice every Jew in the world to Islam for a vote, even if they know they will eventually be responsible for their own children/grandchildrens deaths. Now that is BDS to the MAX.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Good point scrappy!
May 15, 2008 - 22:28 ET by exLibThere was a time a year or so ago when Karl Rove said liberals wanted to "talk" simlar to above, all he mentioned as "liberals" and Shumer, Clinton, Kennedy and probably Kerry held a press conference and had a hissy fit.
I thought it was hillarious because they go out of their way not to admit to being a liberal when asked a direct question, but when Karl Rove says the word liberal they all took offense.
Priceless.
Well put, Scrapiron and
May 15, 2008 - 23:56 ET by CJK51Well put, Scrapiron and ExLib. To hear the outrage from left was absolutely priceless. John Kerry sounded off. Since he was kicked to the curb after losing in 2004, what has he done to make anyone think his opinion matters to anyone besides to fools in Massachusetts who elected him? Nancy Pelosi thinks this speech lacked dignity? Say what you want about President Bush, but considering the eight years of incessant venom being spewed at him and his famiy by Democrats, the media and delusional actors, the fact that he has not commented on it speaks volumes about the man's dignity. For a woman whose face is so stretched that she looks permanently surprised and whose tenure as speaker has been a towering fiasco, Pelosi has nerve criticizing anyone.
I heard newt say that all
May 15, 2008 - 22:54 ET by gopsteveI heard newt say that all Obama had to say was "I agree with Bush"
why didn't he...hmmm
now we know how the msm will react each time they feel their Messiah is "attacked"
It is kind of funny to hear the Dems talk of Bush trying to politicize foreign policy
Did you mean
May 16, 2008 - 10:18 ET by pbanks7Did you mean the Obamessiah?
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
OBAMA CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
May 15, 2008 - 23:03 ET by JayTeeTrue words are a 2 pronged attack ? these politicians are gttin a little too full of themselves....
Obama is trying to get company down into the Hole he's dug himself in...Biden's an Idiot...his presidential campaign was a dud.
W.V. 40 pts. down to a white woman B-HO . . get a grip !
Ya know......why is it that
May 15, 2008 - 23:16 ET by charlietexasYa know......why is it that liberals can dish it out but they can't take it......babies. If Jerry Obama cant take the heat......so on......weenie
mom
He Hit the Bull's Eye
May 16, 2008 - 12:32 ET by LCT688The Democrats pinned the target on themselves and now they complain because the President hit it squarely in the 10 ring.
His speech was placed in clearly deliniated historical context and was targeted at the POLICY of the left not at any individual, yet all of them come out and declare it to be a "personal" attack. Clearly they are more concerned with how they will be perceived than they are with the substance of the President's speech.
It just goes to show how truely shallow their thinking and their personalities are. The reaction could be summed up as: "this isn't about policy this is about me!"
"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one."
Alexander Hamilton
the Demo-flip-floppers
May 15, 2008 - 23:41 ET by nicksmith112the Demo-flip-floppers can't hide their pro Palestine proclivity.
does the loony left support Israel or do they have sympathy for the bad guys???!!!
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
Borrowed this from a post
May 15, 2008 - 23:49 ET by ckc1227Borrowed this from a post at michellemalkin.com:
Priceless! :)
My view
May 16, 2008 - 00:23 ET by badger.What a egotistical/narcissistic fat head Obama is, to think the president was speaking/talking about him. President Bush was speaking of appeasers in general..... throughout history.
It's is Israel's birthday. Very smart people from Israel and the USA has been bargaining, negotiating, pacifying, trying to reason with, and taking with Israel's neighbors for 60 years, blah blah blah, talk talk talk etc. etc. etc., to no avail. What does the high and mighty Obama think that he could possibly bring to the negotiation table that would make any difference whatsoever? Absolutely nothing, just more of the same hot air. Obama has enough problems without inviting more.
Obama's just tired and exhausted from all his campaigning in the 57 states + 1. Poor crybaby. President's big chair is going to be a lot more laborious. That chair will age a person 10 years, guaranteed.
The president's speech had nothing to do with the Democrats. Bush and staff are not going to stir the pot for McCain. Just another opportunity for the Democrats to place the Republicans on the defensive. MSM, see a bunch of meanies. Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, anything for some daily camera time, pathetic.
Press Secretary Dana Perino said it best "the world doesn't revolve around Obama's behind." Not the exact quote but you get the meaning.
"This just in: One of
May 16, 2008 - 01:06 ET by Schnikeys"This just in: One of Obama's weaknesses reveals itself"
Big surprise. Weenies.
------------------------------------------------------------
Grizzly Bear '08
Not only that, but.....
May 16, 2008 - 08:54 ET by OiznopPresidents Kennedy, Nixon, and even Reagan also negotiated directly with America's enemies.” But Mikhail Gorbachev hadn't promised to nuke Israel.
REPLY: Yep. And none of the enemies that these Presidents negotiated with ever attacked America, either.
Oiz
The dems decided that negotiating with terrorists works
May 16, 2008 - 09:01 ET by szampThis shows that the Dems have decided based on no facts that it's possible to negotiate with terrorists. If you say otherwise, you are stupid, nazi, racist, etc...
I guess that if the terrorists disagree with them, they will automatically sue them. I wonder if anyone can show one single occasion in history when this worked.
Regarding those comments from them disapproving Bush for saying what he said on foreign soil. If I were him, I would say to them. "No problem. I will repeat everything I said in American soil".
At the end, Obama supporters are showing how clueless he is.
Regarding those comments
May 16, 2008 - 09:05 ET by FoolicanNow, THAT would be very Reagan-esque.